PvXwiki talk:Policy
Copyright? I think we should scrap the layout copied from GW and create our own layout for this page. The option is to copy the edit history over from GW, but I think it would be nicer to rework the page into something unique to this site. Update Can someone please update this page according to Real Vetting. GCardinal 00:26, 23 May 2007 (CEST) :It already has been. The only change that needed to be made was that Real Vetting needed to be moved into the official policy section, which I already did. It is just disguised as "Official Vetting Policy" and can be found under the "Build policies" heading. I don't see what else needs to be done. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 00:30, 23 May 2007 (CEST) Delete How about adding the attribution to original authors instead of deleting? Or was the page so bad that you wanted to start from scratch? --Hhhippo 11:45, 4 June 2007 (CEST) :I don't know, yet, how the original author wants it attributed. I'd have to ask him, wait for a response, then proceed to attribute it correctly, all the while it would sit as a copyvio. The info can be used (and retrieved, naturally) but not until we attribute it in the manner specified by the author. -Auron 11:48, 4 June 2007 (CEST) ::Ok, is see. Maybe we could, as a temporary solution, replace all the pages that Tanaric wants wiped by a comment stating we follow the corresponding policies on GuildWiki, and a link to that. In case of PvXwiki:Administrators of course also the admin list should survive. ::I hope it's not a copyvio to follow a policy that someone else has written... --Hhhippo 12:10, 4 June 2007 (CEST) :::K, sounds good. Could you do that for each article once I wipe it? -Auron 12:13, 4 June 2007 (CEST) ::::Done. I don't have the admin list, that has to be digged out of the archive. --Hhhippo 12:48, 4 June 2007 (CEST) Proposed Policies in Well Established Policies Should I update the templates up top and give them quick links like PvX:SIGN for instance? —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ 〛 01:23, 5 August 2007 (CEST) :Just did it. I just got caught up in something else and neglected to do that. However, I can't think of any good acronyms for any of them other than YAV, so for now, unless someone else can think of some, the rest don't need acronyms. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 01:27, 5 August 2007 (CEST) Pimpin' Policies I'm tired someone else add blurbs about all the policies. It's a much needed improvement because we have so many policies. This way, it's easier for newer users to adjust to the way the wiki works. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ 〛 21:51, 13 August 2007 (CEST) :Thanks. Looks good. - Krowman 21:55, 13 August 2007 (CEST) I fixed your yellow. Also, if you look at the nav bar, the color is different than the rest of the frame. If you're going to change to a different color, make sure it makes sense: ex. Light blue links on mud yellow is not a pleasant color combo. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ 〛 21:58, 13 August 2007 (CEST) :Looked alright to me. It's just a color though, nothing to throw a fit about. - Krowman 22:04, 13 August 2007 (CEST) ::I wasn't throwing a fit :/ —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ 〛 22:09, 13 August 2007 (CEST) :::Sorry, I meant that I'm not going to be prissy about RVing my color changes. - Krowman 22:25, 13 August 2007 (CEST) ::::Instead of talking about colors, perhaps adding the remaining blurbs would be mighty awesome. I'm watching Star Trek right now. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ 〛 22:56, 13 August 2007 (CEST) :::::Enjoy your Star Trek. - Krowman 23:15, 13 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::I check back during commercials, but thank you, I will. Very much. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ 〛 23:21, 13 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::: :-) - Krowman 23:22, 13 August 2007 (CEST) Alphabetical Order? Not a big deal (except to me 'cause I work at a library), but the first bunch of PvX policies are in alphabetical order, but PvX:NONO through PvX:Guides aren't. Is there a reason for that, or can I alphabetize them? -- Wizardboy777(T/ ) 00:44, 26 September 2007 (CEST) :Go ahead. — Skakid9090 00:53, 26 September 2007 (CEST) Squeeze it Currently, we have like, 10 billion policies. Kind of a bitch to memorize them all and for new users to get acquainted with them. This is the Bull's Charge of policy proposals. Much like Bull's Charge offers bar compression as a cancel stance and a snare, this offers policies a place to be jammed in together. Now, of course current links (e.g. PvX:WELL would redirect to PvXwiki:Builds#Builds Work Well for example) would remain intact and functional. Existing policies would be archived. Now, while this compression scheme isn't the exact one we have to follow, I do feel it is needed. What benefits could this offer PvXwiki? #Easy introduction for new users #No policy overload to scare off existing newbies #No more reliance on Guildwiki policies: we have a distinct community and have distinct needs. The policies would remain exactly the same but with more sections added on and slight grammatical modifications to maintain consistency and flow. Each of these compressed policies would go through the same hoops as any new policy, naturally. Remember, however, that these are not new policies. Compressed Policies Remaining Policies *Guildwiki:Only revert once *PvXwiki:Article retention *PvXwiki:Guides *PvXwiki:Ignore All Rules *PvXwiki:Requests for adminship *PvXwiki:Sign your comments Discuss —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 13:11, 1 January 2008 (EST) Was just talking about this with Wizardboy, though I was thinking of deleting unneeded policies. The disadvantage to this is that we'll have longer policies to read through, though I suppose a lot of them are already short. My other thought was to simply make a new header higher up on the page and say "these are the important ones - read them first, the rest you can get to when you have time". I don't think RfA should be treated as a policy - it's a process, plain and simple. I also think SIGN, GUIDES, IGNORE, AGF, and YAV should be guidelines. (I don't particularly want to have to deal with a whiny kid who's trying to use a perverted interpretation of IGNORE, AGF, and YAV to defend his semi-vandelous acts.) On another note, are we actually going to write up DICK? I know I did on GW2W, but it's one of those sacred red pages over here. :o -- Armond Warblade 13:23, 1 January 2008 (EST) :Well, I just call them all policies but whatever. The point of this is we need compression. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 13:38, 1 January 2008 (EST) I'll volunteer to try to compress the policies regarding Build creation. Might be a while though. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (EST) I honestly would like to wait for DE to come back to do this. He's our best policy writer. -- Armond Warblade 15:47, 6 January 2008 (EST) Ok... so I suppose this idea has some merits; however, as far as I can tell, the proposed synthesis is somewhat poorly planned. So the (only) advantage to this proposal is that it reduces clutter on the Policy page. That said, if we were to follow the proposal as written, we would end up with a number of enormous policies. Additionally, the fact is that the more obviously distinct policies we have, the easier it is to find what you're looking for. So, here's my proposal: *Get rid of "We are not ArenaNet" and "We are not Wikipedia," even as guidelines they would have little or no value. *Make AGF, YAV, CONTENT, SIGN, GUIDES, and IGNORE guidelines. Create a page specifically for guidelines, and then provide a link on the policy page. *Add a one or two line phrase to ADMIN stating that the primary purpose of Administrators is to moderate users and that they have no additional say in content. Delete "Administrate users, not content" *Merge NPA and 1RV into DIS, delete NPA and 1RV. *Add a simple paragraph to the policy page detailing how to submit new policies and remove the link to GuildWiki's Policy page. *Create a PvX version of IMAGE. This isn't a policy that gets cited a lot, and assuming we do the other things I've detailed, if we write our own version of IMAGE, we'll no longer need to refer to any of GuildWiki's policies. *Merge WELL and DELETE (into a policy called PvX:Build Deletion). *Merge NAME into EB in a section entitled "Submitting Builds" *Merge ARCHIVE and "Editing User Pages" into Editing User and Talk Pages (or something along those lines) *Merge EVAL into ADMIN This breakdown allows us to compress the policy section without compromising the overall structure. And, since most of it is copy-pasting, anyone should be able to do it. Although a couple like PvX:Build Deletion might need their intro re-written. So... any thoughts? [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 23:21, 19 January 2008 (EST) :Sounds good! – [[User:Hhhippo|'HHHIPPO']] ‹sysop› 06:34, 20 January 2008 (EST) ::I like it. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 12:53, 20 January 2008 (EST) :::This is pleasing to all. Commence the construction of text walls! —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 14:08, 20 January 2008 (EST) PvX:SIGN Is missing from the page... ĐONT TALK 14:01, 22 January 2008 (EST) :It's not missing. It's a guideline now, not a policy. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 14:10, 22 January 2008 (EST) ::Duh.. my bad. ĐONT TALK 14:20, 22 January 2008 (EST) abuse of "admmisnstaratyro power" what if an "admin" bans a user he just doesn't like? or what if an admin is racist and bans someone because they said they're a certain race the admin doesn't like? what then?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or what if a user didn't break any rules or anything? what if the user is a really nice guy and posts great builds and is nice to everyone? and then an admin BANNS HIM!!!!!! (because he personally thinks a build the user posted is not good, but it really IS good, or what if it's an RA build, and the admin doesn't understand RA, or thinks RA is not the fun part of the game, but the user does, and the admin starts flaming the user and the user is like "whatever sorry you don't like the build" and then the admin flames him more and more and more and then banns him? i love how the policy supports racism... "admis can do whatever they want and ban people for no reason" (or because they're ) and "abuses of power simply do not happen" (and yet they do - they ban people for no reason all the effin time - that is an "abuse" (look it up) of power). Death 02:57, 1 February 2008 (EST) :Please stop pretending you aren't talking about yourself, it's irritating. Also, that post was stupid and you should feel stupid for posting it. --71.229 08:04, 1 February 2008 (EST) :Erm... so... common sense = racism? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And here I was thinking that correlation didn't imply causation. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 09:14, 1 February 2008 (EST) :May I ask what an "admmisnstaratyro" is? -- Armond Warblade 16:30, 1 February 2008 (EST) ::Agree with Armond. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (EST) what is NOT vandalism posting relevant topics on discussion pages (or even articles) is not vandalism. just because YOU disagree with something does NOT mean that it is vandalism, that the user who posted it should be BANNED, etc. Death 03:01, 1 February 2008 (EST) i, no doubt, will be banned for my above post, and the one above it - no doubt. ("abuse of power simply does not happen" they say- love how they keep that up, hehe) - go head i don't care at all. in my opinion the quality of this website is not good enough for it to be of any value at all. that is just my personal opinion though which i am free to express, especially "free" since i don't care if i can't *banned* for expressing it. :) Death 03:05, 1 February 2008 (EST) :You've done nothing bannable since your last ban ended. You've just given me a headache. Is it so hard to accept that maybe, just maybe, we know what we're doing and we're not out to get you? Seriously, you're being dumb. -- Armond Warblade 04:59, 1 February 2008 (EST) ::A much better place for this discussion would be on PvXwiki talk:Administrators. In the meantime Death, watch it with the personal attacks - posting relevant topics on discussion pages is not vandalism, but posting personal attacks anywhere is a bannable offense, as you probably already know. As for your accusations, that is why we have multiple administrators and multiple levels of administrators. If you believe any of the admins are abusing their power, we have four bureaucrats who can demote them, assuming you can convince them that this is indeed the case (Auron, DE, Gcardinal, and Hhhippo). Administrators can also counteract each other's actions if they believe a ban was unjustified - we all have e-mails and instant messenger addresses posted here if you wish to contact one of us. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 07:56, 1 February 2008 (EST) Proposed Policies * PvXwiki:Portals * PvXwiki:PvP Build Renewal * PvXwiki:Criteria for Speedy Deletion * PvXwiki:Biased Voting * PvXwiki:Resurrection Skills * PvXwiki:Team Builds * PvXwiki:BM Vetting * PvXwiki:BM Testing * PvXwiki:Build Archival * PvXwiki:Build Documentation * PvXwiki:Constructive Criticism Only * PvXwiki:STFU * PvXwiki:Evaluating Build Masters * PvXwiki:Practical Testing * PvXwiki:Requests for Signature Template * PvXwiki:You're Banned Dumbass ^- Some of them have been there for a greater part of a year, any way to compress/get rid of/pass/fail/ w/e any of them so the list doesnt continue to get bigger w/o anything actually happening.----ﮎHædõ๘یíɳimage:Shadowsin_sig.PNG 18:04, 24 September 2008 (EDT) :I sorted out some of them. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 02:28, 25 September 2008 (EDT) categories Do we have a policy against uploading pornographic images or linking to a pornographic website? 19:02, 9 December 2008 (EST) :Don't think so. I'm sure one of the policies covers it though or something. -- 19:03, 9 December 2008 (EST) ::ah found it. "Uploading of any pornographic, advertising, illegal or patently offensive material will be immediately removed and may result in long term or permanent bans. " GuildWiki:Image use policy. But what about linking to porn websites? 19:05, 9 December 2008 (EST) :::I have seen graphic images removed with the justification of them being graphic. So, I'd say yes (even if it's unwritten). And to prevent yourself from being banned, I wouldn't link to a porn site. Karate Jesus 19:06, 9 December 2008 (EST) :::::Ummmm....somebody's gonna get in trouble. Karate Jesus 19:17, 9 December 2008 (EST) ::::::Linking to porno websites, isn't against policy, becasue we assume people have the common sense to know what not to link to (Scams, porno, viruses etc...). Needless to say, don't is the short answer. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 09:38, 10 December 2008 (EST) All non-team builds with Great Dwarf Weapon saying 'o u need teammate to cast on you' should be converted to pve-team builds with two copies of the build I'd do it myself, but I'm sure everyone will get pissy with me if I tried. --Mafaraxas (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (EST) :It doesnt take that much effort to read through the build. 16:56, 17 December 2008 (EST) ::It doesn't take that much effort to categorize things correctly. --Mafaraxas (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2008 (EST) :::It saves space and has an easier loading time cause of pvxbig if you only have one copy of the build. 18:05, 17 December 2008 (EST) ::::Tag it for team, and just say take 2 of these builds or something (or even put a note saying someone else on your team should take GDW...), there;s no need to move them to team and add an extra bar in.... ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 18:22, 17 December 2008 (EST) :::::Tbh, I've thought that you should just put a note at the beginning saying that one of your team members should carry GDW for you, and use something else there instead. I think most people who use those builds do that anyway (because, honestly, you're probably not going to have 5-6 guys running the same build). It would free up a spot and then you wouldn't have to tag it as a team build. Karate Jesus 18:29, 17 December 2008 (EST)